Here's how the Washington Post "Supports the Military"
 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/MikeFer/jcs2.jpg

I already refused to read this snot-rag. Now I'll make it a point not to buy from any company that advertises in it, and let the companies involved know the reason.

It seems I'm not alone in my opinion, either.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/MikeFer/test3.jpg

A classy response to a tasteless cartoon.

Wow, let's make satire illegal too!
Boycott freethinking!!!!! It's offensive! just like porn!!

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/3554/xxx4iv.jpg

Seems like the cartoon is saying that Rumsfeld is not giving soldiers their benefits by saying that greivious injuries are not really that bad?

Is this against the military? Seems like it is against Rumsfeld?

No one said it should be illegal, or that the Washing Post should be shut down.

Your post has no point other than to be melodramatic as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The Washinton Post is free to print its leftist sluge as it sees fit, people like Marv and myself, and apparently the leaders of the armed forces are allowed to be disgusted by such sluge and even *gasp* write them a polite letter experessing that feeling.

I wonder how much better our lives would be if we attacked dishonest politicians with as much gusto as we attack cartoons that make us mad.

I honestly could care less what the cartoon says. Cartoons don't anger me. A secretary of defense that views the citizens he deigns to protect as bothersome irritants is what angers me.

And I prefer to be spared the melodrama of a bunch of generals taken aback by a cartoon depicting a soldier who's lost all his limbs. Where's their outrage over the REAL soldiers who lose their arms and legs? Are they going to write a letter to our president spelling out their distate for this unjust war?

Please do, its called voting.

We re-elected Bush in 2004.

I would think the origional post is melodramatic
A condemming letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff is anything but polite,
It's threating.

If you truely want to boycott everything todo with the Washing Post.
I hope you are prepared to boycott the following.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/gannett.asp

We *elected* Bush in 2004. He was *appointed* in 2000.

And frankly, the 2004 election is suspect. He won by a hair's breadth (50.7% of the popular vote is hardly a "mandate"), and he only won because he carried Ohio AND Florida. Florida has well documented election-day problems, and Ohio used machines supplied by a man who promised to deliver Ohio for Bush.

But you don't see suspicions or investigations like that in the "liberal" media, do you?

So it's your opinion the JCS are threatening to bomb the Washington Post building?


Actually, I'm already boycotting all of those. But that's not what I said.

[Edit: I just spotted the Army Times and Navy Times in your list. Thanks--I'm certainly going to pass that information along.]

The Post can print what it wants. However, I can write letters to whomever I want, and they will be sent to those businesses who advertise in the Post, as I said.

If enough others did the same, the "lofty ideals" of the Post would be replaced by whatever it takes to keep its staff salaries secure.

Since he was "only elected in 2004," he's eligible for another term, right?

No, cut them off from press events, and "neglect" to protect reporters
in danger zones.



It's hard enough to get the truth out of the MSM as is.
That's why they are diversified into liberal, conserative, moderate, pro this, anti-that media organitations.

don't forget washington post co. is also co-owned by knight ridder
Gannet has associations with tribune as well.
As far as advertisers......every major corporation in the world.

The cartoon was satire of rumsfeld's mistreatment of injured solders BTW

Good lord! haven't we had enough police state yet? :eek:

Where is this police state? I was hoping the tinfoil crew had at least quieted around here, ah well back to your regularly schduled delusions...

It's a decent cartoon. Poltical cartoons are illustrations or comic strips containing a political or social message. This does that. It uses a simple metaphore to communicate the reality of the current situation with our military. We are facing a problem. Soldiers are being terribly injured, mamed, and killed, all the while people like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explain how well the war is going. This cartoon tries to simplify that problem so that even those who can only glance at a paper can understand. In this "callous depiction", Tom Toles is trying to get people interested in the welfare of our soldiers. And this is a diservice to the readers? Not at all. This is only a diservice to those who benifit from sheilding the American people from the reality of the Second Gulf War.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...04#post1994682
There has been a major change from the peace officer
to the jack boot law enforcement officer.
If you haven't noticed consider your self lucky, or blind
Every day new police abuse cases are reported

Nice try, but anyone, elected to the presidency or not, who serves more than 2 years of a term, is only eligible for one more term. Otherwise, if someone had killed Bush the day after the 2000 "election" Cheney could theoretically be president for 11 years, 364 days.

Meldrama for the win yet again.

We are not in a police state any more now than we were in 2000. Of course the lines are a bit longer at the airports, but I don't recall that as defining a police state.

Please, don't join the moonbats while claiming to be conservative.

Which definition of Conservative are you using? Are you using the "Conservative" that follows the Republican administration? Or do you mean the "Conservative" who wants smaller government, national sovereignty and isolationsim, and beleives in the Constitution? Thsoea re two very different animals.

Conservative's call for smaller goverment, and more personal freedoms.
Not more laws, and more policing.....
that would be a stateist you are refering to.

In 2000 it was already bad, I'll agree completely there.

the army is stretched pretty thin, which is the point of the cartoon. toles actually seems concerned about the military. he doesn't think it's getting the best "medical advice," blaming those in washington for the gruesome fate of the soldier.

it's fine to question his methods, but it is a misinterpretation to state that he is making light of the situation. it's obviously very serious.


there's no good segue for this, but a split infinitive has penetrated the highest levels of command

Those wondering about the police state and not seeing it must have missed all the posts about people being locked up in cages at the RNC and "free speech zones" (cages with barbed wire tops.) A lot of the arguements against these zones were "well Bush didn't make these zones.. the POlICE in those cities chose to do this." So it's either the president or our local/city/state police who did/do this to the citizens. Either way it doesn't make it right.

I have to agree with this assessment and it is quite true. The administration claims to support the troops yet refused to get the needed body armor and armor vehicles until the press had to report how bad the situation was. (Even now our men are not armed and protected to the best of our ability.) We are overanxious to pay Halliburton millions for materials they never deliver and to overcharge on fuel, but to arm and protect the troops......welllllll we'll see if we can work out some funding, it's those damned unpatriotic Dems. you know that prevent our giving the military the money they need.... To medically care for them.....welllllll we'll see if we can work out some funding, it's those damned unpatriotic Dems. you know that prevent our giving the military the money they need.

When the soldiers do get home those that were injured are treated badly and find that the VA hospitals are just meat plants where they do just enough to get the soldier out and home but offer very little assistance, aftercare and therapy.

But after several economic debates with the Right here, what can one expect. The Right doesn't give a damn if the soldier has mental problems from what he has seen, or has lost an arm or a leg. According to the Right, "fuck them, they can support themselves." Just keep your God damned hands off their tax cuts!!!!!!!!

If anyone wants to ever come to Brecksville VA Hospital once a week with me to see the men who come back and the bullshit way our government treats them, you are more than welcome to. I guarantee after you talk to men wounded in action and the vets at Brecksville it will change how "caring about the military" our president truly is.

So, no I see nothing wrong with the cartoon...... maybe the fact that it is so close to the truth and how we truly handle our vets, maybe that is what bothers the Right so much. They just can't handle the truth, because the truth disturbs their glee for tax cuts and heaven forbid someone show them what is truly happening.

As for the Chiefs of Staff letter...... what else are they going to say?

But the telling part is the last sentence in the last true paragraph: "While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

Meanwhile, the Right say "Keep your Goddamned hands of my tax cuts, we sacrifice nothing!"

Meanwhile, the administration keeps cutting vets benefits.

Meanwhile, the troops come home to find the military is done with them and in some cases they treat the vets as second class citizens.

But keep trying to flame the cartoons that point this out...... maybe your consciences find it easier than to face the truth.

Since when are political cartoons supposed to follow rules? Political cartoons are satire. They're here to make a point. To show a perspective. And singling out this newspaper is beyond ridiculous. It's just plain stupid. I mean, you've got to be kidding me. What makes this war soooooo touchy-feely for you people? Anything even remotely derogatory towards the iraq war is seen as NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS! TRAITORS!! Cartoons like this are NOTHING new. This is not even close to being something that hasn't been done before, on the offense-o-meter, in all kinds of newspapers.

Actually a person can only serve 10 years max as president. 2 years maximum in succession of a president and 2 elected terms.

Amendment 22 was passed because noone wanted a president to serve like FDR did 4 consecutive terms (although he died in early in his 4th).

Even George Washington when he stepped down said that no man should serve more than 8 years.

BTW Rev. Moon who owns the Wash. Times has given North Korea how many Soviet Nuclear subs and has given the leaders there millions of dollars in support.

Yet, his paper and news is far more accurate, because he is a big time Bush supporter and would never do anything to hurt America.

Wait those statements conflict don't they?

Ahhhh to be a blind supporter of Bush running only on hatred and greed. Attack the paper that actually shows we need to treat vets better, while supporting the paper whose owner gives aid and help to a nation's leaders that Bush himself called part of the axis of terror.

Such hypocrisy, such blindness.... and all for tax cuts and greed. I'd hate to deal with your Karmas.

Nothing like that is said or implied in the Joint Chiefs' letter. That letter is simply them sticking up for their men who are serving and bearing the brunt of the cost of this war. The Chiefs are simply saying that using those who are paying such a high price to attack the system they are serving is callous. To state that the Joint Chiefs' letter was threatening, followed be these assumptions, is really just histrionics. It's not supported by the text.

This is where I have a problem with the cartoon - your interpretation is NOT what the cartoon is about. The soldier in the cartoon does not represent all servicemen. He represents the health of the US Army as a whole. Look at the chart on the foot of the bed. The cartoonist is making the point that Rumsfeld publicly refuses to acknowledge the bruised and battered condition of the Army, which is more than physical injuries, and has little to do with individual benefits. Toles (the artist) is pointing out that an assessment of the state of the armed forces that does not take recruiting, supply, funding and logistical challenges into account is naive.

His points are good ones, but made in a tasteless (and obviously ineffective way). He chose to use the image of a maimed soldier to represent the Army as a whole (again, notice the chart on the foot of the bed). However, this is not done in a clear enough manner. Nearly every person in this thread has identified the depicted soldier as representing all soldiers and that the metaphor is over benefits and treatments stemming from injuries. However, the shocking image of a completely maimed individual is the focus of the image, as it is guaranteed to produce sympathy, outrage, and/or revulsion. THIS is why I feel the cartoon is tasteless and poorly done. It is also why I feel that the Joint Chiefs' measured and polite letter is a classy response, as they object to their injured men being used for shock value.

I wouldn't say it was ineffective, quite the contrary, it is very effective. It has people making interpretations and talking about it. That's the purpose of editorial art, to get people to talk about it, examine the issue it brings out. And this cartoon does a damn good job of doing just that.

I also think it amazing noone has talked about the little talk at the bottom saying, "I prescribe you be stretched then, we don't define that as torture."

If you define effective as "memorable", then I'm with you. I used the word ineffective because the cartoon is sufficiently unclear that the controversy has centered around a point that is a little different from what the artist indicated.

So in essence, no argument with you here, but I just wanted to clarify exactly what I meant.

i frankly dont see the problem with the cartoon: but i kinda like toles.
that some of the conservatives above would use a POLITICAL CARTOON to justify refusing to read the post, and by extension, i assume, to not deal with information that is not wrapped in a nice conservative ideological gloss is absurd.

1. the main marketing line from the right about the war in iraq is "support our troops"---it is a clever line---it bypasses the myriad problems with the justificatino for bushwar and would replace political questions---serious, unresolved political questions---with some kind of immediate identification with the american victims of this absurd war--the troops on the ground.
there is nothing normal about this line: it is marketing of war.
during those periods when the conservatives were feeling less--o what's the word--marginal, none of them who support the colonal adventure in iraq hesitated to extend the logic of this marketing slogan to its conclusion: if you criticize bushwar, you disrespect the troops blah blah blah

at the point this administration chose to market its brutal, absurd and ineptly run little adventure on these line, they also politicized the image of "the troops"---and if you want to talk about tastelessness, the conversation should start with this.

but for the Outraged Conservatives above, no thought is given to the politicized nature of this kind of image, no thought is given to the fact that it is their boy and his band of incompetents who politicized it.

and what could possibly be more tasteless than marketing war?

2. the obvious immediate target is rumsfeld and the various assessments of the impact of this misbegotten colonial adventure on the state of the military. this has been said above---i am agnostic on the question of whether the american military is stretched thin or not, simply because i do not feel competent to evluate the various claims either way. but the issue is out there, and it, too, is politicized largely as a function of administration actions. toles did not invent the visual rheotric of the cartoon, he did not put these images into play---bushwar and its associated marketing campaigns, subsequent information and responses set this up.

3. some may find the cartoon offensive, but so what?
it's a POLITICAL CARTOON folks, and giving offense is part of the stock in trade. consider the limitations of the form: one panel.
that's not much space.
that the knickers of some conservatives are in a twist over this is kinda funny.
must be a good cartoon---in that it was able to move beyond the limits of a single frame and the limits of the postioning of political cartoons in the post and into the public sphere as the object of debate.
the cartoon worked, folks, and this debate about "taste" simply confirms its effectiveness.

that the joint chiefs wrote a letter about it is amazing to me.
i kinda wonder if the letter is real--because it is a stupid move on their part----in that it draws attention to and in a backhanded way inflates the significance of a cartoon--had they found it offensive really, they would have been well advised to ignore it.

for example, i might not have known about the cartoon had it not been for the exchange and the recap of it that marv posted above.
it would have passed through the pipelines of image debris and disappeared like so much else does.
responding as a body to tom toles' cartoon was simply a stupid idea.

4. propositions concerning "good taste" from folk on the right are self-negating.
the right as a political bloc has shown itself to be hostile to the arts for years, since the reagan period.
the right has used its backwater standards of "good taste" to undermine or eliminate funding for the arts.

on the other hand, that this kind of thin-skinned puritanism is out there can be seen as a good opportunity---scandal often legitimates and extends the reach of the object at its center--far more people know about serrano's "piss christ" because of the lather produced in conservativeland than otherwise would have: far more people have seen it that otherwise would have...the conservative lather about "taste" is good pr.

side note: one of roachboy's alter egos is a musician. one of the formations in which that guy works uses sounds that gets grouped under the cateogry of "noise" or "noise music"---nothing would help that guy's musical cause like this would:

http://www.mothersagainstnoise.us/

it's a hoax, but i really wish it wasnt....

Are you the artist? Do you know what he planned to "indicate?" At first glance, I thought it was patently clear what the artist was depicting. And yes, you're right -- you COULD say that he was representing the whole Army with one soldier, but what would you prefer? A drawing of 100 Army soldiers maimed and a doctor saying the same? would it have been more clear? One is enough for me (and apparently too much for the Generals), and it, along with the chart, clearly shows that he's talking about the Army as a whole.

What is the difference between "all servicemen" and "The US Army as a whole" ?

I'm not the artist. I think you already suspected that. Obviously this is only one man's interpretation and opinion - and I only write it to explain my first reaction to the cartoon as being tasteless (post #2). My assessment of what the artist "indicated" is based on 2 pictures within the cartoon and the small bit of text at the bottom - material that all of us can see plainly. I think all of us are qualified to give our opinions and interpretations. There's room in the world for more views than mine.

At any rate, in my mind the difference between all servicemen and the US Army as a whole is that the latter includes the health of logistical, recruiting, funding, public perception, and supply systems (as I indicated in post #27). This distinction is why I don't think the cartoon is clear in its target - most TFP readers seem to be focussing on individual soldiers and medical/injury related issues rather than the system, which I interpret to be the basis for the cartoon.

Roachboy (post #30, point 4) - if you are talking to me as a "conservative" who attacks the cartoon based on taste issues, I hope this post clarifies that my assessment of the artist's taste has a lot to do with the fact that I think the cartoon is sloppily targeted while using an incendiary metaphor, which I see as indicative of artistic laziness. Also (if you are speaking to me), I don't appreciate being painted by your rather wide conservative brush as if my motivations and judgments can be explained by your idea of contemporary conservative ideology, which may or may not even apply to me. In particular, your comments on the relationship of conservatives to the art world are off base - you are aware of my relationship to the arts. Not only that, but your characterization is far too simple, as it fails to acknowledge that some of the periods of highest financial support for the NEA have been during Republican administrations (which also has nothing to do with me). If you weren't speaking to me, then I apologize for taking offense - I hope you understand that I don't like being the target of generalizations.

Right. Just like when we were told that anyone who refuses to see a movie starring Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn is "against the right of free speech."

No... just no. There is not a single Hummer in Iraq that isn't armored anymore. The closest to it are the Medical Hummers, and those are relegated by the Geneva Convention so we can't. I dont know where you're getting your information, but ask some of those you talk to in the hospital that got back within the last 6months.

Once again... no. VA hospitals are amazing places, I dont know how yours is ran but I've been amongst them all my life. People are even going back to war now missing limbs because of the great service and their belief in the war.

People pay to see Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn?

Tweeeeet!
Flag on the play.
Who is going back to war...missing limbs? They may believe in the war. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that they received excellent care from the VA (wouldn't happen in Omaha, but I'll bite). But noone, that is missing a limb(s), is going back to war. If they are, then our military is stretched far thinner than I ever imagined.

uber: i wasn't actually directing what i said at you--i thought that yours was a reasonable position--the way in which i disagree with it relies on more general propositions, and so works at a different level. most of the "conservatives do x" type statements were directed at the posts from other folk.

marv: your last post would be what we in the biz call a non-sequitor. try again.

hey Bill,
i could have sworn i've seen stories of people going back to iraq with a prosthetic.

> turns out it was not a full limb, but pretty interesting nonetheless
http://www.google.com/search?hs=ma3&...aq&btnG=Search

Just a quick question, had he made the point clear, would the cartoon still achieve the purpose to bring out thought and debate?

I think it works better when the interpretation goes to the viewer not the artist, and this is a good case of it.

I have a question... why are 4 generals and 2 admirals getting ansey and bothered about a poltical cartoon? Don't they have jobs?

Will, I think the answer to your question is also the source "event" of the political cartoonist. Recently, Rumsfeld pronounced the military in great shape even though a recently published Pentagon report and a commander in Iraq said otherwise.

I believe Toles was simply harpooning Rumsfeld for denying what his own people are telling him. Hence a memo from the Perfumed Princes in defense of the chief. That's my guess and 2 cents worth.

I think so - and in my opinion only, the inflammatory image would be a lot more defensible.

Elphaba, you might very well be correct. However, I'd like to take them at face value when they write "we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

Regarding the original post and thread title: I don't actually think it is the Washington Post's job to "support the troops". In my opinion, supporting the troops is a good and admirable thing to do, but the Washington Post's job is to sell papers. They probably feel that they can do that best by supporting their readers' exposure to diverse points of view. Or maybe they do hate the troops - but that is immaterial. There is no obligation to voice only support for our armed forces. Such a duty would be onerous and repugnant. Support them because they deserve it, not because you have to.

Sounds like another made-up controversy to me. I didn't really find the cartoon all that funny, but I'm not offended by it either and I've worked with and been friends with countless seriously-injured veterans. I'm personally more outraged at the people who put them in that position than at some cartoonist depicting them in a cartoon.

I am adding a link covering the dispute between Rumsfeld and the Pentagon report for anyone interested. I apologize, if this constitutes a threadjack.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/military.studies/

These days, you'd find it hard to live your life without benefitting any cause that you dont particularly agree with. With that in mind, I find reactions such as the original post to be amusing from an observer's standpoint. Why get so riled up? If you spend your time reacting to all that's revolting and unsavory, you're gonna start looking like nothing more than an attention seeker.

Come to think of it, like 90% of the political 'news' today is reactionary. Hmm.. this deserves a post on it's own.

Not only that, but the irony of accusing a cartoonist of "not supporting the military" because he's pointing out how horrendously abused the military is. . .well, that's just. . .ironic.

Sometimes it seems that people are just looking for things to get pissed off about.

I agree. Look at me, I'm angry and passionate! ...and I overlook a lot of things!

The Washington Post and Toles have commented:

Truth Out Link

For those that didn't quite catch this phrase in the political cartoon, it is in reference to "the thin green line" that the Pentagon report used to depict our current on-the-ground army troups in Iraq. Green = Army.

Here's a question: Is it a newspaper's job to "support the military"?

If this topic has any value, it would be to answer Will's question.

I appreciate that very much. To elaborate, these men are responsible for soldiers, but they are not responsible for PR. These men should be perfecting strategies, triple checking intel, making sure that our soldiers come back with all their limbs, and protecting our freedoms. Do they really have the free time to write a BS letter to some cartoonist (actually a very talented and critically aclaimed cartoonist)?

It's a newspaper's job to post opinions in the opinion section. Some of those opinions are in the form of political cartoons. Strangely enough those political cartoonists have opinions, and oftentimes those opinions show in their cartoons. If you don't like the opinion the cartoonist expressed, you are free to draw your own or, should you lack any artistic tallent like I do, you can write a letter to the editor and get your own opinion in the opinion section.

That's a loaded question.

It is their duty to support the troops to a degree that you want to keep battle line morale up.

That said, it is also the media's responsibility to be as honest and to report what they are seeing to us so that we know the "truth". But the truth has become obscured because the press on both sides have their agendas.

The problem is you have this heavy partisan split and for the past few years the media being just whacked in every turn. So you have people believing what they want to hear and read and not really delving into the truth.

So when one news source states "A" is happening, the other side has to retaliate and say "B" is happening and "A" is just bias and lies.

I was early with this, so I'm going to quote myself:

Actually, that's wrong. It's not their duty. Journalistic operations do not have a duty to support ANYTHING except the truth (and many of them kinda forget to support that too).



True. And that's where the question was really loaded. Because that editorial cartoon DOES support the troops. The neocons might tell you that pointing out the fact that our troops are being abused by the military high command and the whitehouse is failing to support them, but in fact pointing out the wrongs dished out to the troops IS supporting the troops.



Bingo. And that's exacerbated by the fact that the media cannot report the truth if it's negative without someone accusing the media of being biased.

Shakran,

I don't know I think on the front lines our troops don't need to hear trivial BS like Sheehan getting arrested and then appologized to. Or about the division between philosophies and parties.

Maybe it's just my belief but if I were a reporter on the lines the last thing I would want to do is report anything to the men that would lower their morale. This could lead to men feeling apathetic and getting killed.

On the other hand, I also understand that the men deserve to know what is happening back home and what is going on as far as politically because it affects them also. They deserve the truth.

Man, that is a very tough question, I am glad I am not a reporter who has to be over there, because I want to believe I'd do "A" but "B" does have it's merits. That is a call too hard for me to make. Thank God, I don't have to make the call.

cartoons are really pissing people off this week
it's beginning to get silly

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...oon/index.htmldon't want to steer the post away from the original topic, i just think it is possible to take cartoons too seriously (regardless of your deeply-held beliefs).

(discussion on this particular issue here -- http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=100630 )

So much for political freedom in Iraq.

First off you gotta realize that unless they read it online, the troops aren't reading the washington post. At least, not anywhere close to the publication date.

As a reporter on the front lines, the only concession to the truth you should be making is in not reporting something that could cause actual harm to the troops - i.e. Geraldo the Moron mapping out where his unit was for all the Iraqis to see. But suppressing the truth to try and protect troop morale - - it'd have to be pretty inconsequential truth to do that. I'm not gonna run a story about the soldier who's cheating on his wife, but if the troops I'm stationed with aren't getting the supplies they need to be as safe as possible and fight as effectively as possible, then you're bloody right I'm gonna report it, and I'm gonna report it until the situation changes.

The troops' collective morale isn't gonna be hurt by me saying they're stretched too thin, or they don't have good body armor. They already KNOW that. Their morale sucks because the sons'a bitches that sent them over there didn't give them the numbers or equipment they needed. Their morale sucks because they're stationed over there far longer than they're supposed to be. Blaming the messenger for troop morale is stupid. Let's instead blame the guys at the top who are responsible for putting the troops in this demoralizing position.

That is why you are in the profession you are in and I'm not. It's also a reason I respect you because you have the judgement and seem to be able to make the calls, and with good rationalizations, I couldn't. :thumbsup:

Since when do generals know anything about how to draw political cartoons? Maybe they should hold their tongues concerning things that they aren't experts on.

Unfortunately, by that logic none of us are qualified to weigh in on the war... Or was that your sarcastic point?

And since when did they collectively choose to attack one particular political cartoon? I don't recall it ever happening before. So, back to Will's question.

Why?

My opinion, given this specific instance, is that Rumsfeld needed to counter a specific attack to his version of military strength. Perhaps it was easier to attack the media and a political cartoonist, than the report from within his own department. Distraction and denial is nothing new to this administration, nor in Rummy's previous government appointments.

Upon further review the ruling on the field is overturned.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4522136

Link for the full story.

Uh, ok. Back to the political cartoon?

Edit with the hope of keeping this threadjack from continuing:

He's selling a book, too. :rolleyes:

What I'd like to see in a public statement is this: "I apologize that my political cartoon's meaning flew way over your head. Please do not bother me or my publisher until you have fully understood the signifigance of my work. Until then, might I suggest Family Circus or Marmaduke until your comic comprehension is up to par."

I think a statement like that woulda won the admiration of just about every intelligent person on this planet. And after all, isn't that the only thing that matters?

Some here aren't old enough to remember all the flak that Ross Perot caught for referring to a black audience as "you people."

But congratulations--you just put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out of business.
:thumbsup:

You hit the nail on the head right there. Political types seem to paint everything in a very black or white sort of way: Its either this or its that. It can't be anything else. There is no critical thought put into their responses. It is simply a reactionary machine doing what it is programmed to do.

Maintaining morale is one of the most important jobs of any military leader.

If only everyone subscribed to that general philosophy.

So this cartoon is why morale is so low in the military? Of all the things these military leaders can do to help morale, they write a cartoonist? Oh Marv, you can't be serious.

I would think it would help the morale of the troops greatly to see their leaders defending them and the war they are fighting for, by opposing cartoons in mass media that could be considered in poor taste, even mocking their efforts and resulting injuries.

It takes 5 seconds or less to sign a letter, but for troops to see that signature in defense of them and their cause would certainly make that 5 seconds of effort worthwhile.

Furthermore, if I was a soldier in a foreign land and saw such a cartoon, and no response from my leaders, I think that would be a great concern. There is more to leadership than just issuing orders and organizing training drills.

Well. . yeah, i suppose it would help morale to see that. Unfortunately, the troops didn't see that in this case. See, the cartoon was not mocking their efforts and resulting injuries. It was mocking Rumsfeld for expecting people to fall for his "the military is fine even though it's stretched beyond thin and we're not bothering to equip them properly" bullshit.

The cartoon is pointing out the fact that the military is being flagrantly abused. The cartoon is SUPPORTING the military because it's trying to change the fact that the military is being abused.

Mocking? Did you see the cartoon? The cartoon is honoring the sacrafice of the soldier, while trying to communicate that Donald Rumsfeld is the one showing the troops - who have sacraficed - disrespect. You're misunderstanding th cartoon just as these 4 enerals and 2 admirals have.
All these gernerals and admirals have done is show that they will back up the Bush administration no matter what...and that is the very thing that has the troops morale down.
You don't understand the cartoon. If I were to see a cartoon, misunderstand it and be offended by it, who's fault is that? Is it the cartoonists? Nope. It's mine for not thinking about it. Political cartoons are supposed to make you think.

You point out how the military and vets are being treated badly and all the Right does is accuse you of being against the war and the troops. It's pointless arguing with them because all they fucking care about is their tax cuts...... if they truly cared about the war or the military they wouldn't want tax cuts until after the war.

*PS See my Voinovich post where he says the same thing...... go figure a GOP senator speaking out.

How can you be sure you are interpreting the cartoon correctly? Is there only one interpretation that is "right"?

To me, the cartoon is showing a doctor, in this case Rumsfield, making glib of the soldiers injuries and sacrifices.

Regardless of who is making glib of the situation, I think it is important for the leaders of those being disrespected to back up their men. A letter signed by them shows that they disapprove of the cartoon and its attempt at lessening the importance of what these soldiers are sacrificing in the process of serving their country.

George Bush could be the man in the suit, and the letter would still be justified. The leaders that sign the letter likely have more connection with their troops than George Bush or Donald Rumsfield, and thus they are 100% justified in writing a letter to show the troops that they have their back. That is what leaders do. To not write a letter and just sit idly as others sling disrespect and mockery, regardless of medium, would be concerning to me.

Is the cartoonist justified in creating and publishing such art? Absolutely, but a response from those leading the men featured in such cartoons are also fully justified in sending signed letters expressing their disapproval.

Because you're interpretation doesn't make sense. How is that disrespecting the soldiers? Showing them injured? I can give you the number of one of my best friends who lost his leg and he can explain to you how true it is. People are getting hurt and are losing their lives. Any sugar coating and sheltering from that is simply sheltering one's self from reality. It's not disrespectful to show reality. The disrespect is towards Donny Rummy, the man who insists that things are going well, all along sending people back and extending tours.
Can you elaborate?
Again, the soldier is not being disrespected. Read the response from the man who illustrated this one page one of this thread if I can't convince you. These men, generals and admirals, are protecting Rummy, not the soldiers. If they were interested in protecting the soldiers, they'd be doing EVERYTHING THEY COULD to get them home.
They are justified for nothing. The are pawns in military uniforms. It is not the job of a general or an admiral to protect the image of Rummy. It is their jobs to protect the soldiers from injuries and death. Let the idiot PR people at the white house protect Rummy or Bush or Coldaliesalot.
This isn't about justification. This is about job descriptions. Admirals and generals have jobs to do, and that does not include bullshitting for the current administration.

My take on the cartoon is: Someone (in this case, Rumsfield) is belittling the wounded soldier's fresh injuries. Furthermore, it is making light of the entire situation by having Rummy make a witty and weak comment in regards to someone that has literally sacrificed life and limb to serve his country.

The soldier is being disrepected by Rummy, but the cartoon is disrespecting everyone involved IMO. The cartoon seems inappropriate to me. Generally, I am not a fan of using injured troops as a means for political satire, jokes, and comic strips, even if they are intended to be portrayed in a good light; which I still don't think they are in this case.

The cartoon pisses me off primarily because Rummy is belittling the injured soldier, but it also pisses me off because a recently injured soldier is the means through which a cartoonist is trying to send his message. There may be nothing wrong with that, but it bothers me. I guess I am not big on seeing people that sacrifice so much only being represented when they are in bandages and disabled.

I will admit I may be wrong about the letter, and that logic would dictate the writers are writing more for the defense of Rumsfield, than the soldier portrayed, but I also have trouble accepting the fact that they are heartless bastards that take no issue with their soldiers being featured/represnted in cartoons in such a injured condition.

I can agree with this. I don't know the Joint Chiefs pasts, but in most cases they have risen up through the ranks and my experience in the military is that the officers that truly cared for their men and did their best to treat their men with the utmost respect, were the ones who advanced faster and farther than those who treated the men like shit and tried to buck for a promotion.

GOod example of this is my Suppo who treated us like shit on the ship, he was stuck at Lt. for a few years and forced to resign at that level because he would never advance. He was fucking scum of the Earth and I would never do shit for that man unless ordered to. He was a piece of shit slimeball and deserved his fate.

Yet, the ship's XO (Executive Officer) was the most fair, decent and respectful man I ever met in the Navy (and was one of the most influential, greatest men I have met in any period of my life) and he advanced quite well and quite far. I will always have the greatest respect for that man, and would have followed him anywhere and known that in times of crisis he'd put his life down for any single man on that ship.

In the cartoon there is a villan and a brave victim. Depicting one as a brave victim usually doesn't imply disrespect. The cartoonist specifically said, "I certainly never intended it to be in any way a personal attack on, or a derogatory comment on, the service or sacrifice of American soldiers." That's extremly clear. The intent was not to make light of the soldiers situation, in fact it was to bring the sad situation to light so that these solderis can recieve the respect they deserve for their sacrafice(s).
A ha. The solder is being disrespected by Rummy, and that's the point. Many people still don't realze that the top officials in the executive branch spit out nothing but lies. When Rumsfeld explains how we are winning the war and when Bush says "bring em on" to the terrorists, some people cheer without thinking. This is more than satire. The ficticious injured solder is a tool for communication...communication of information and opinion that would be benificial for those who don't grasp the full scope of this war and the effect on the soldiers. The American media refuses to show American soldiers coming back from Iraq in caskets. We see soldiers run into homes or driving along long, dusty roads. Only in fairly liberal or grass roots media that we can begin to fully understand the extent of pain and misery steming from the second gulf war.
You should be pissed at Rumsfeld, that's what the cartoon is all about. "Rumsfeld is bad, and here's why..." This is hardly the only representation of soldiers in American media. This, however tells a diffferent story than we are used to. Not all soldiers are safe. Not all soldiers are kids that will come home as heros and get back to their lives. Some soldiers hate the war, even.
This solder represents a group that is underrepresented in media. I won't presume to tell you how to emotionally respond to something, but I'd like for you to consider that the intent of the cartoon was to respect the soldier.

Why oh why are you getting so worked up over someone's opinion? WHY?!!?

Where does actually having a post invasion plan, or supplying and adequate number of troops to do the job come into maintaining morale?



Yeah, fuck everyone and their stupid uninformed opinions that aren't like my, correct, informed opinions.

Sorry, but you're wrong. There's no wiggle room here, you're just simply wrong. Look at the chart. It doesn't say "Soldier" it says "US Army." Editorial cartoon people are usually used to represent something or some concept. The cartoonist will label it so you know what it represents. The next time you see a cartoon with an elephant squashing a donkey, you would do well not to immediately start contacting animal rights groups to complain.

The picture of the wounded soldier is labelled US Army because it is representative of the US Army. Not a soldier. It is saying the US Army is horribly wounded and not in good enough condition for the task it has been set with.

Personally, I'm kinda frustrated that so many are being hurt or killed for oil and for the sake of campaign contributors making an extra billion. Like I said above, a good friend of mine, someone I've known almost all my life, is in a hospital right now with only one leg. It really hits home for me because I am an anti-war perosn that comes from a military family. This alone is horrible beyond words, let alone the terrible losses of Iraqi civilians over the last decade. Bewteen embargos, daily bombing runs, and invasion and occupation, the Iraqi people have had a terrible time.

And now these gnerals and admirals, who are charged with the defense of the US (which includes our soldiers), and writing letters because either they don't understand political cartoons or they want to defend Donald Rumsfled. :( It's all a bit much to just sit around and say nothing, speaking for myself.

Ha. Ha. That´s one funny satire there. HAHAHAHA!

The Verbatim section of the lastest issue of Time is instructive, and at least helps me believe that the generals aren't interested in defending Rumsfeld.

"Anyone with an ounce of sense would see that it's the opposite" - Rumsfeld on the charge that the troops are over-stretched.

The next day:

"The forces are stretched, I don't think there's any question to that." - General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq.

Oh, General George Casey is an excelent military commander. I suspect he is the buffer between the ignorance from above and the innocence from below. He keep the idiots in the white house happy, but he does his best to protect the troops. I've never heard a bad word about him. Not all generals are ignorant, that's for sure.

The fact remains, either the generals and admirals that signed that letter are ignorant or they are covering for Rummy. THOSE military leaders are the ones that piss me off. It's the same deal with King George the Dubeyuh; he's either monumentally stupid, or he is extreemly corrupt. Neither choice is all that favorable.

And you would be right, but good luck convincing military-haters of that.

Because everyone wants to believe their opinion is the right one and that those who oppose may threaten those beliefs.

That's why logical debates 99.9% of the time breakdown into fights, threats, insults and so on. And it's not so much a conscious decision, I think it is more a defense mechanism so that one does not have to re-evaluate their beliefs and what they have believed.

And then there are those that may feel the same way personally, but play devil's advocate on here to see how others may defend their same belief systems.

The human psyche and the defense mechanisms each individual uses should never be underestimated.

I'm still laughing over this response :D